Re: Manned Space Programs
From: Henry Spencer (henry_at_spsystems.net)
Date: 11/08/04
- Next message: Jack Love: "Re: Scientists against Bush or Swift Boats against Kerry - whom would you believe? Tin cans don't have minds!"
- Previous message: Peter Fairbrother: "Fuel/oxidiser ratios"
- In reply to: Richard Alger: "Manned Space Programs"
- Next in thread: Paul Blay: "Re: Manned Space Programs"
- Reply: Paul Blay: "Re: Manned Space Programs"
- Reply: Henk Boonsma: "Re: Manned Space Programs"
- Reply: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Re: Manned Space Programs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 05:54:38 GMT
In article <25464-418EE6F2-428@storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net>,
Richard Alger <daikaiju@webtv.net> wrote:
>It seems to me rather curious, that so many nations have the ability to
>launch equipment to space, but only three have manned space programs. I
>wonder why Japan and the European Space Agency haven't developed manned
>launch vehicles.
Basically, because NASA talked them into participating in the space
station instead of proceeding with separate manned-spaceflight programs.
Both have perfectly adequate launch vehicles; what they lack are suitable
spacecraft. Both are quite capable of building them.
Indeed, despite the station, both have *had* programs to build them. But
both efforts suffered from lack of a clear, agreed near-term mission, and
the result was confusion between developing advanced technology and
building operational vehicles. Efforts which had the budget and technical
depth to build and fly manned capsules fairly quickly and easily, instead
got bogged down in trying to build things with wings, and ended up wasting
large amounts of money and never delivering anything.
>Still, if Spaceship One taught us anything, it's that you can get people
>into space without a NASA sized budget.
Provided that you are not a government agency, and in particular, that
your objective is to get people into space, not to provide jobs for
aerospace dinosaurs. It also helps if you are allowed to accept some risk
of failure; a national megaproject which is so crucial to its sponsoring
agency's future that it *must not* fail will inevitably spend a lot of
money (futilely) trying to absolutely guarantee success.
Besides, the national agencies mostly think Rutan's success was either an
accident or some kind of special case that isn't relevant to them. To
believe otherwise would be to admit that they have been wasting billions
of taxpayer dollars. They will resist such a confession to their dying
breaths. "The Guard dies, but it never surrenders." Instead, they will
assure you that if Rutan was doing *real* spaceflight (and the definition
of "real" will change as necessary, so that successful low-cost private
efforts are always excluded), he too would need to spend billions to get
even marginal results.
>Since I mentioned Spaceship One, are there any plans to fly SS-1 again?
At last report, no. It was built to do a job, and has done it. It'll
fly again only if some other job appears that it could do.
>Or, are any of the other contestants for the X-Prize planning to finish
>/ fly their vehicles?
Their problem all along has been finding funding. Being also-rans, with
no prize money waiting, can only make that harder. It's unlikely to
happen unless the X Prize Cup becomes real and has real money behind it.
Even then, some of the contestants will probably decide that their X-Prize
designs aren't really suitable for ongoing competition, and will either
change design or bow out. (I'm thinking of Da Vinci's balloon launch in
particular: it's a marginal idea even for a competition as unconstrained
as the original X-Prize -- too poorly controlled, too demanding of exactly
the right weather -- and strikes me as hopeless for most anything else.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | henry@spsystems.net
- Next message: Jack Love: "Re: Scientists against Bush or Swift Boats against Kerry - whom would you believe? Tin cans don't have minds!"
- Previous message: Peter Fairbrother: "Fuel/oxidiser ratios"
- In reply to: Richard Alger: "Manned Space Programs"
- Next in thread: Paul Blay: "Re: Manned Space Programs"
- Reply: Paul Blay: "Re: Manned Space Programs"
- Reply: Henk Boonsma: "Re: Manned Space Programs"
- Reply: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Re: Manned Space Programs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|